mlb_official_scorers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by specifying the return structure ('roster:[{person, job}]') and explicitly stating that no authentication is needed, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it lacks details on filtering behavior, pagination, or edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely compact, using three short sentences or fragments to convey purpose, return format, and authentication requirement. Every piece of information serves a clear function, there is no repetition or filler, and the essential details are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, the description covers the return shape and authentication but omits how the parameters alter results and any behavioral notes about the response. With no output schema, the return line is valuable, yet the description remains minimal and could benefit from parameter-specific context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (date as 'As-of date', sportId as 'Sport id.'), giving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself does not mention the parameters or how they affect the response, so it adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already communicates. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Official scorer assignments' identifies the resource but lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', making it more of a noun phrase than a clear action. The 'Returns: {roster:[{person, job}]}' line gives a hint of retrieval behavior, but the primary statement closely mirrors the tool name and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as mlb_umpires or mlb_datacasters.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of recommended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, and sibling tools with similar official role functionality are never referenced.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.